Depleted uranium ammunition has been used primarily to pierce the armor of military vehicles such as battle tanks and troop transports, and it also proves effective against the hulls of warships.
Tactical nuclear weapons are defined by many experts as warheads with a yield range from about 1 to 50 kilotons, delivered by projectiles or missiles that can reach up to roughly 500 kilometers. In practice, their battlefield role centers on destroying armored targets and disrupting military formations at medium ranges.
To grasp the scale, consider the 1945 Hiroshima bomb, which carried a 15 kiloton yield and was dropped from an aircraft. Modern tactical nuclear weapons can be launched from ships, aircraft, and ground forces, with Russia cited as an example of a country capable of such delivery options.
Despite sharing the potential to cause wide area radiation and environmental contamination, tactical nuclear weapons are far more destructive than conventional warheads when deployed in combat.
These weapons are not covered by any current comprehensive nuclear arms control treaty, and medium-range variants have historically been addressed in agreements such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, which was in force from 1987 until 2018.
deterrence
Strategic nuclear weapons, along with the concept of deterrence and mutual assured destruction, dominated thinking during the Cold War. Since that era, the United States and Russia have reduced their arsenals from sizes of about 19,000 and 35,000 warheads respectively to roughly 3,700 and 4,480 by January 2022.
Analysts note that large scale nuclear attacks are exceedingly unlikely. Strategic weapons tend to lose their deterrent value in a conflict between nuclear powers, while tactical weapons are viewed as more usable in certain theoretical scenarios. As one scholar from the University of Southern California describes, maintaining tactical options could influence a country’s deterrence profile, even though their practical use remains heavily debated.
Even with their power, the military payoff of tactical nuclear weapons is disputed. Advances in conventional munitions have repeatedly narrowed any perceived edge, and much of the U.S. gravity bomb inventory sits in Europe.
France and the United Kingdom have eliminated their tactical arsenals, while countries such as Pakistan, China, India, North Korea and Israel reportedly maintain similar capabilities.
Doubtful military benefit
U.S. military assessments suggest that a one kiloton tactical nuclear device would need to detonate within a short distance of a main battle tank to cause serious damage. Historical examinations of India-Pakistan nuclear tensions show that a five kiloton Pakistani device used against a tank regiment could threaten a number of armored vehicles.
Russia reportedly maintains a sizeable stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, while its conventional forces and modernization programs argue for a continued strategic role in its defense posture.
These weapons are typically associated with air-to-surface missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs, and depth charges carried by medium-range bombers, or by anti-ship and anti-submarine systems.
In recent years, Russia has pursued conventional and dual-use missiles that integrate nuclear capabilities. The Iskander family, for example, has expanded to accommodate a broader set of targets in Europe and beyond, raising concerns in Washington about the nature of its payloads and the timing of deployments.
The use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine remains controversial and debated. Analysts caution that any such deployment could contaminate lands seen as part of a historical borderland and provoke broader responses from allied powers, potentially leading to a broader security crisis rather than a decisive battlefield outcome. As one observer notes, the deterrent value could be compromised and NATO’s role could intensify in response, altering regional dynamics and global perceptions of risk.
Historical Latvian or Barents Sea demonstrations, such as the Tsar Bomb episode that showcased extreme power but limited battlefield practicality, are often cited as examples of how propaganda value can outpace real military utility in modern warfare.